The Scientifically Acceptable Hypothesis that Some UFOs Are Otherworldly
By
Giorgio Piacenza
Before thinking integrally about the extraordinary, it should at least have been rationally approved as genuine under modern, scientific thinking...
Introductory Remarks
Introductory Remarks
Can it be validly asserted in a rigorous scientific manner that some UFOs are indeed extraterrestrial and-or of otherworldly intelligent origin? Is this an eternally ‘preposterous’ statement mostly because of psychological and sociological forces or is there already sufficient evidence to merit this affirmation scientifically?
Pierre-Simon La Place’s allegedly affirmed the adage that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportional to its strangeness.” Off course, what constitutes “strangeness” for some may not constitute the same for another and what is valued as “extraordinary evidence” may depend on inadequate or adequate biases. However, accepting La Place’s adage at face value (an adage rephrased and made popular by the famous and inspiring cosmologist and exobiologist Carl Sagan in 1986), we do seem to have enough of such evidence to posit in a scientific manner not only that some genuine UFOs MAY BE extraterrestrial but also that they ARE extraterrestrial.
However, most scientific, academic and cultural leaders in positions of power or in need to maintain their work and status stubbornly hold on to established theories and to a metaphysics of materialism, mechanicism, positivism mostly suitable to phenomena limited to a classic physical world and inimical to the fraction of UFOs which after careful research continuous being truly anomalous. They dare not take a careful, unbiased study of the best evidence considering it with the necessary fresh eyes of awe and wonder required of scientists. UFOs are especially controversial if mind is somehow involved in the physical effects, if they remind us of magic, if the discovery that we are not alone in the universe has long come and gone, if macro-scale quantum events are displayed apparently annulling inertial forces and gravity modifying space-time.
Ostensibly scientists love evidence over speculation but the key issue here is that they seem to abhor the extraordinary if the extraordinary lies outside the also beautiful and enthralling material world that can be mechanistically interpreted. Thus, the extraordinary can often be easily dismissed. However, a more challenging form of the “extraordinary” exists along with its undeniable concomitant evidence.
Accepting that some of those genuine “anomalies” (perhaps 1% to 5% of carefully researched UFO cases if researched under classic biases) comes with so much evidence that it genuinely demands scientific attention may also be too hot of a “potato” to handle and there’s the understandable fear of not knowing what will happen if one risks calling a naked emperor “naked.” What is available for scientific judgment would not simply be a “residue” from which unwarranted conclusions are being drawn because that “residue” (even one case) can be highly indicative of a serious anomaly in our conventional views. On the other hand, the number of cases admissible as genuinely unexplained could be much larger if considered under a less deconstructive methodology. But accepting the evidence is a “catch-22” inside the scientific “priesthood.” Accepting as genuine the anomalies provided by an ever-increasing piling up of a variety of evidence from UFO research, observations, experiences and inductive implications would be empirically based and inductively honest in terms of how science should operate but it would nonetheless evidence that the materialist, positivist, mechanicist edifice cannot remain unchallenged.
But, simultaneously, inside the “priesthood” scientists risk ridicule, demotion, ostracism, denial of funding. They may even secretly fear never to be taken seriously again and to undergo an eventual “ex-communication” and in such environment there’s – understandably - little room for the truly extraordinary. Unfortunately, in spite of advances in quantum physics (already slowly challenging some cultural foundations) there seems to be little time left to spare as doing it may only increase destruction and conflict by not recognizing the complex, self-organizing patterns of an ever-surprising, highly interconnected world. There’s little time to keep holding on to the erroneous but entrenched-atavistic illusion of essential disconnection and dichotomous thinking without peril. I take it that we urgently need to start sensing, understanding and feeling that “the world” and all sentient beings in it also holographically exist within us beyond any spacetime distance and disconnection.
And the “priesthood” normally supportive of (and supported by) the broader cultural-political system is still another human social institution derived from an outmoded but ingrained and manipulative excessively generalized “win-lose” mindset and its associated power play. Within its boundaries, the value of “truth” and the “spirit of science” often becomes a lip-service metaphor in the current “publish or die” competitive system typically geared toward the chase of tenure, recognition and-or significant corporate or government funding.
But people want to know and, if more information on the best available evidence gets out widespread past the walls of information barriers and selective information processing, cognitive dissonance is bound to rise in the scientific and human heart. Moreover, empirically verifiable truth (even if repeating itself without a clear pattern over time) has a way to assert itself by incessantly bringing back into clarity both human consciousness and conscience. In other worlds, denial has limits. Especially in the case of truly anomalous UFOs, the international weight of collectively accumulated evidence is piling up to such a degree that it’s turning both simplistic attitudinal denial, intellectual posing and overt or covert suppression into feeble-minded props increasingly unable to sustain the conventional edifice.
In the end, we’ll be collectively forced to take an “honest-to-God” look at the unique but persistently obvious, doing it with interest, awe and “fresh eyes,” weighing as much of the “Grade A” evidence about the reality, uniqueness and importance of the interactive phenomenon; self-removing the veils imposed by ill-disposed social forces, attendant, closed-minded premises and incompatible theories which must, after all, evolve.
But can we really do it? Is the UFO phenomenon too strange for us to cognitively apprehend and manage? Will an honest attempt to do it lead to another round of social strife and chaos? I believe in human resilience and the capacity to face – first and foremost - the facts. Within us there ought to be a deeper CAPACITY TO ADAPT even to aspects of reality which transcend classic thinking patterns.
Most fundamentally, we can recognize that something REAL (even if challenging and strange) is going on and respond beyond our half-baked, old-fashion reactions into more intelligent and conscious responses that may feed back into the phenomenon co-opting it to evolve. Perhaps, if we become more proactive and aware that our thinking patterns are ineffective (ending our rather general indifference and-or denial) we may (as notable researcher Jacques Vallée suggested) be able to modify through our own feedback the cybernetic control or “steering” mechanism behind the physically-interactive, but also rather “ambiguous” and “cryptic” meaning of most of today’s truly anomalous UFO event (now elusively impinging upon our minds and civilization as if asking from us a more intelligent response arising from the choice of growing up and becoming aware).
Perhaps the event needs us to rise to the challenge. The truly anomalous UFO experience is probably beckoning us to respond to it differently from what is customary and it may be doing it from a realm outside of our stubborn, self-complacent and increasingly dangerous organizations based on outmoded time-forward, entropy-increasing, linear, conscious modes of thinking, feeling, being. Besides coming to terms with a basic recognition of a percentage of truly anomalous UFO reality (any percentage will do), the capacity to adapt to this non-ordinary reality may already exist within our bodies, our minds and consciousnesses through the inner quantum universe we participate in, a realm located in a higher order, “topology” and type of symmetry connecting “objects” with our unconscious minds in a meaningful, non-linear way, both retrocausally and atemporally; a non-local and metaphysically prior realm subjacent to any need to “make sense” of sensorial phenomena just through classic, bio - psychological predispositions. Quite likely, the mental realm of experiential possibility may be “transdimensionally” used via the inter phasing of quantum reality to affect physical probabilities and our unconscious minds are already connected with it.
In other words, we are likely to have the wherewithal, the need and, through the UFO phenomenon (among other reality-challenging phenomena) the spur cajoling us to open our eyes, shift the probabilities by gaining information, and discovering how we participate in a vaster multiverse of profound meaning and connectivity. What we should definitely stop doing is hiding time and again under the sheets, holding on to an “us vs. them” self-protective, fear-based mentality, laughing at the accumulating evidence, hoping that the emergent reality will go away.
Just as when upon delaying when to observe and to gain information (from our particular space-time perspective) from electrons that have already moved through slits as waves we can retrocausally affect their prior state, we may be subtly interacting with an intelligent quantum-like phenomenon whose reality (as probabilities from our perspective) may retrocausally change and become defined for us when we are able to observe its particulate, spacetime aspect. While still physically interactive with our physical system, generally-speaking, the “genuine UFO” may still be physical in its own right but in a distinct level of reality which could be in more of a quantum mechanical state in contrast with ours. In fact, that “quantum state” (quantum stage?) difference may be why interactions are elusive, sometimes conclusive for some and often leaving considerable margins for doubt for many.
Because of currently subtle or non-complete interactions still leaving doubt on large segments of humanity on a collective scale the phenomenon’s original probable states may only minimally change upon interactions with some of us. Its reality is simultaneously physical, liminal and imaginal. As a corollary there may not yet be “absolute, collective proof” of a non-classic, “hyper physical” and/or “transdimensional” intelligent phenomenon slowly but surely interacting with humanity by various means or… there may indeed be that at least for some of us as (unlike certain circumstances change) the interaction is meant to be in preliminary interactive stages. Nonetheless, conceptually-speaking, (extrapolating Gödel’s incompleteness theorems beyond second order arithmetic) there may not even be (using classical, two-valued, excluded middle logic) “absolute proof” about any phenomenon whatsoever in terms of classic scientific thinking based on classic logic. However, I think that there is “sufficient proof” from a rational perspective even if at present our recognizing it eludes us due to the social forces and attachment to inimical theories, worldviews and paradigms insisting on the narrow use of our not-to-adequate, bio-psychologically predisposed predispositions.
Even so, because the reasonable aspects of our minds and the intuitive extend over and beyond the strictly excluded middle-dependent, “rational” (corresponding to a classic two-value logic), through experience and accumulated, pattern-producing information, we can also validly work with scientifically reasonable assumptions (as scientists do all the time in spite of implications extrapolated from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) stating that we already have sufficient bona fide evidence intuiting the scientifically valid hypothesis that some UFOs not only are scientifically interesting but also examples of an advanced, “otherworldly” science.
Subtleties about Evidence
Following a strict procedure to classify “UFOs,” after adequate, careful, objective research and evaluation, only some of them can be sufficiently confirmed in a sufficiently scientific manner as truly “anomalous” or – technically- as genuine UFO’s. This understanding corresponds to astronomer J. Allen Hynek’s basic endorsement that UFOs can be objectively deemed as such only after experts capable of making an unbiased determination have carefully looked at the evidence not being able to find a prosaic explanation. Speaking before a United Nations ad hoc committee in 1978 he summarized that definition as “any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons.” Thus, for Hynek a “UFO” (an acronym created by Captain Edward Ruppelt, director of Project Grudge and Project Blue Book from 1951 to 1953) is not simply an unknown or unidentified flying object as is the case under a lax popular understanding.
It is clear in a strict sense that not all unidentified objects in the sky are UFOs because they have not been carefully studied by qualified experts that could not truthfully, carefully and objectively find a suitable conventional explanation. It is also clear that only some UFOs could be extraterrestrial in origin but a non-analytical, popular understanding often automatically confuses the acronym “UFO” with “extraterrestrial spaceship (or vehicle).” This is why many serious researchers and official Air Force teams in the world now prefer to use other equivalent terms.
Cases corresponding to Hynek’s strict definition could generally be in the “D2” sub-category among the “PAN” cases accumulating in the files of France’s official GEIPAN committee (“PAN” being an acronym meaning “Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifies” or “Unidentified Aero Space Phenomena” or “UAP’s” in the English language and “FANIs” “Fenómenos Aéro Espaciales No Identificados” in Spanish).
GEIPAN (Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux non Identifiés or in English “Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon Research and Information Group”) is a unit of the French Space Agency “CNES” and categorizes its types of “PAN” cases as “A” “B” “C” and “D.” While GEIPAN’S “D” category of cases (also subdivided into “D1” and “D2” types) correspond to an “unexplained” amount of 22% of the total number, of these, only “D2” cases present multiple kinds of highly consistent evidence. The latter “D2” cases typically correspond to 1%-3% of the total number cases received after people have been willing to fill out a questionnaire and analysts have had the time to evaluate to the best of their possibilities and under their particular ways of accepting or dismissing information and evidence.
However, while GEIPAN doesn’t officially discard the (intelligent and technologically advanced) “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis,” strictly-speaking, even some of these “D2” cases may or may not be indicative of actual intelligent extraterrestrial and-or technically advanced (perhaps “transdimensional”), “otherworldly” events and, moreover, not just the remaining “D1” cases but also cases assigned to other categories (some of the “C” cases – about 41% - presenting non-ordinary characteristics but for which there is insufficient information may also well be truly anomalous even if after careful evaluation they cannot be objectively categorized as such. Furthermore, even a small fraction of the approximately 28% of cases categorized as “B” cases (those with information mainly - but not definitely - supporting a prosaic explanation or the “null hypothesis” against the more popular “extraterrestrial hypothesis”) may be truly anomalous cases. Finally, none of the cases assigned to the “A” category (about 9%) can be considered “anomalous” because they are the ones that have been entirely and conventionally explained.
The official French research GEIPAN was previously called “SEPRA” and before that (beginning in 1977) “GEPAN” an – as of today – has been an effort spanning some 38 years. In 1999 the (technically- speaking) non-official "Committee for In-Depth Studies" (COMETA) formed by high-level analysts, scientists, and military closely associated with the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, SEPRA and the French Space Agency (CNES) concluded that the best explanation for some Unidentified Aero Space Phenomena (UAP’s) was the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. Technically-speaking, it was not the “French Government” or an official institution in that government adopting such a more unequivocal position but – as far as I can tell - within that government (represented in these matters by GEIPAN), that hypothesis is simply not officially discarded but is (albeit non-stridently) positively considered among the possibilities. The same may be said of Chile’s CEFAA, Uruguay’s CRIDOVNI and Peru’s DIFAA. It makes no sense to dismiss a genuine POSSIBILITY because it is strange but unlike COMETA and particular researchers (like me) they normally take a more conservative and prudent public stance until evidence is truly extraordinary.
The Fine Line
The term “otherworldly” reminds us of past superstitions accepted on faith and tradition; of unproven assumptions from which science and a segment of humanity’s evolutionary “leaders” emerged out from only a few centuries ago. Nonetheless, through quantum physics, scientifically careful paranormal and parapsychological research and the findings of conventional, “bona fide” sciences like astrobiology, the “intelligentsia” and people considered to be “educated” are once again gaining respect for that term. We are gradually coming to understand that other realities besides our ordinary physical world may exist and –instead of being validated mainly by experience and tradition – can also be scientifically validated. Thus, we are moving back spiral-like into a non-mechanistic, non-reductionist, “re-enchantment” of the world under a more integrative and evolved perspective.
There’s a fine line between admitting and stating that – rationally-speaking - SOME UAP phenomena MAY be of advanced ET and/or “otherworldly” origin and – also rationally- speaking - stating that the most RATIONAL EXPLANATION (among several) is that they ARE of advanced ET and/or otherworldly origin. The latter is usually summarized as the “ETH” (extraterrestrial hypothesis) historically associated with a “nuts & bolts” approach but it is becoming increasingly clear that that physicalist approach can be expanded to include a physically interactive “inter dimensional” hypothesis, or even macro-scale, quantum, retrocausal, information-based, space-time manipulating hyper dimensional –multidimensional and-or extradimensional, possibilities. The latter also is my working hypothesis.
Agreeing with the high-level French committee known as “COMETA” (one acting quite independently as an ad hoc committee which – technically speaking – was not under the direct control of the French Government or a unit thereof), I contend that indeed the ETH has been sufficiently substantiated as the most plausible EXPLANATION which can be considered as a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis. In fact (also technically-speaking), general agreement is not required to emit a genuine and valid scientific opinion and hypothesis. Neither is a degree of voluntary reproducibility of a phenomenon easily applicable (as in a lab performing a classic physics experiment) to every INTELLIGENT PHENOMENON which may require a more intimate degree of interaction with researchers for that to happen.
Our approach on how to conduct valid science is not rigidly set in stone. Concepts about what is a genuine scientific approach and about an ideal “scientific method” evolve and sometimes supplementary, (but not always necessary) ideas are included such as the more post-modern, constructivist idea that there has to be general consensus and acceptance from the power elites and major cultural players for any scientific hypothesis or explanation to be “real.” But the latter idea applies more for science to have societal effects, to be acknowledged and be influential in social reality but – in my view - not for the essential practice of science per se. How in the world would we have ever flown airplanes or reached outer space if we had waited for respectability and scientific consensus?
Did Galileo have to wait for a consensus of reasonable and impartial scientists and Church representatives to look through his telescope before accepting the Copernican theory over Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory based on his own observations? No, he was conducting perfectly adequate science even if doing it by himself.
It is crucially in the practice of actual individual scientists that hypotheses can be scientifically considered as sufficiently validated. It is when science is well-practiced that counts. So the ETH can really not just be considered as a valid and admissible scientific hypothesis, but also one that (for at least some accredited scientists and critical thinking individuals with a scientific approach) has been sufficiently demonstrated in a genuine scientific manner to posit that it best explains a fraction of UFO and UFO-related events. This is equivalent to proposing that an actual intelligent extraterrestrial presence is showing up on Earth.
This, without the need for general consensus from a bureaucratized community apparently set on demonstrating Thomas Kuhn’s thinking about resistance to “scientific revolutions” through an early acknowledgement of a paradigm’s insufficiency. Thus, it is not necessary to wait for ample consensus for the correct recognition of a hypothesis as being the most adequate. Moreover, rigid materialist scientifist approximations to science are losing their grip and evidence that was previously considered as irrelevant may now be considered useful from an integrative perspective aware and inclusive of the importance of subjectivity and inter subjectivity.
And what about Karl Popper’s “falsifiability?” Well, if the ETH is not a valid hypothesis in relation to UAPs it should eventually be found after consistently working under a more proactive method. It is often said that – due to the elusiveness of the phenomenon not producing a recognizable pattern– it is impossible to prove or disprove the ETH but I beg to differ. It may continue being very difficult to verify or falsify if we continue using an “after the facts” type of research and analysis or if we dismiss going out to the field to increase the chances of an interactive experience with intelligences that may have their own reason for showing up or not.
Based on the testimonies of alleged experiencers/contactees regarding the potential willingness of some extraterrestrial intelligences to communicate and based on the fact that intelligent behavior seems to accompany some UFOs/UAPs, then ways to test the ETH through expediting greater degrees of voluntary interaction can be predicted. Some more credible voluntary conscious physical contactees like Sixto Paz and Steven Greer even provide guidelines to assist us in doing this.
Counsel
Instead of waiting for another 40 years for more researchers, UFO organizations and official Air Force teams around the world to – once again - conclude (while not discarding the ETH) that indeed a small percentage of the sightings are “unexplainable,” it should be possible (or not but should be seriously tried) to relate more creatively with the phenomenon, to eventually show that an intelligent interaction with ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) can take place or is actually taking place in relation to some UFOs/UAPs. Then, perhaps some of these objects could be called “Identified Extraterrestrial Vehicles” (IEV’s), “Intelligently Directed Extraterrestrial Vehicles” (IDEVs) or so.
Interactive or responsive approaches, signals, communications and maneuvers –even landings - which can be filmed, collectively witnessed, measured from different angles (for instance with electrostatic and magnetic field meters, gamma ray detectors and spectrographic devices) or simultaneously photographed by two cameras a good known distance apart (in order to triangulate a distance from a three-dimensional object assuming no major spatio-temporal distortions throwing calculations off) would be some of the extremely worthwhile efforts ufologists should also increasingly engage in. Seeking ways to generate mutually respectful interactions would be crucial in making an intelligently guided phenomenon more amenable to being verified or falsified.
Why limit research possibilities to a posteriori data analysis? It behooves serious researchers to start this more proactive and experimental phase of seeking to interact with the phenomenon more intimately and intelligently before it takes place, for instance by expanding and perfecting so called “CE-5” initiatives including working with a few bona fide contactees that have shown a reasonable degree of objective and collective evidence of their interactions. We should go out to field work assuming that at least some genuine UFOs are intelligently controlled and that at least some of the intelligences behind these “unknown” objects have a say or choice as per their interactions with us and that that interaction can evolve or change according to how we approach them.
ET Hypothesis-Some Validating Evidence
Essentially, a scientific hypothesis is a proposal useful to start explaining some observed and/or deduced patterns of information. The case for the ETH relies on a vast confluence or significant co-incidence of different types of (‘hard’ and ‘soft’) evidence compatible with the idea of an intelligent otherworldly presence capable of producing non-conventional physical (and subjective-intersubjective) effects through a technology associated with some UFOs reports.
The ETH may even be testable and, in terms of that general guideline called “parsimony,” it may be one of the simplest, straightforward proposals best explaining that confluence of evidence. Otherwise, to deny the barrage of evidence would probably require settling in for a statistical Type Two error or inventing complicated to maintain the not fitting illusion of paradigms and worldviews which (in spite of more than 100 years of quantum mechanics) are still heavily influenced by passé forms of materialism and mechanicism. How many times will highly experienced pilots confuse a balloon, a dead fly against the windshield or the planet Venus rising outside of their visual range for a large UFO? How often can electrical plasmas coherently endure for quite some time, follow airplanes and behave intelligently? Are hundreds of credible, credentialed professionals who worked in government projects or witnessed activities pertaining to ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) just making it up, risking their reputations due to a pathological need for attention? If the ETH is correct and interactions can be modified and improved by changing our responses, feedback and input we may be able to gradually acquire more interactive evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis.
Closing our minds to the possibility of intelligent beings capable of a more communicative interaction just because we assume from the start that it would be impossible for them to come from afar or because we assume that they should behave as we would if we were “ambassador-astronauts” is only partially reasonable and is definitely once again clouded by…hubris.
We cannot discount outstanding scientific progress arriving or a possible science capable of sneakily (but not necessarily ill-intended) “transferring” advanced extraterrestrial entities into our reality system, especially when there already are in our midst convergent and promising alternative scientific developments in the works such as the possibility of manipulating spacetime, energy, entropy, mass, inertia, uncertainty, the quantum of action, wave function ‘collapse’ and gravity through 5D theoretical and experimental advances in the Alcubierre Drive, the possibility of modifying the quantum potential perhaps through resonant holographic conjugates and an associated non-local, holographic information field. I understand that all of these emerging concepts may be compatible with each other and with the concept of manipulating the scalar electrodynamic potential and its virtual particle fields. They may also be compatible with the concept of learning to use pre-physical, intention-interacting, interconnected fractal energy-information geometric pathways in the quantum vacuum.
The Amount of Evidence
The amount of circumstantial evidence, approved photographic and video evidence after analysis, thousands of declassified, well-researched, sketched, documented and evaluated UFO (or UAP) case files in Air Forces or other government institutions around the world (often describing not just “lights in the sky” but occasional structured objects) cannot be - in all honesty - offhandedly dismissed as poppycock.
The presence of mentally sound witnesses and credible professional witnesses including military, presidents and pilots; the existence of credible former government whistleblowers with verified professional credentials; the analysis of land traces with chemical evidence of soil modification; radar-visual UFO daylight cases, sometimes accompanied by several witnesses and air intercepts and intense interaction (such as the 1980 incident over La Joya Air Force Base in Perú); the mention of strange flying discs in ancient documents (such as in Medieval Japan); verified and plausible official documentary evidence specifically mentioning flying saucers and retrieved aliens; photographs of lenticular and tubular objects dating back at least to the beginning of the XX Century; an ever increasing number of mentally healthy persons (even children) currently reporting interactions and one-way and two-way messages as contactees, abductees and, generally-speaking as “experiencers” is too copious and mutually-reinforcing of an evidence (which sometimes includes photographs, electrical and “paranormal” effects at home, other witnesses) to reasonably dismiss as simply caused by confusion, misperceptions, hoaxes, mental illness or perhaps the need for re-enchantment and magic.
Occasionally individuals (like Daniel Fry) being given tid bits of scientifically plausible knowledge. “Programmed sightings” through voluntary, telepathic “contactees” and/or sensing or somehow knowing in advance when an alleged ET vehicle is about to appear and allowed to be photographed (as in Peter Maxwell Slattery’s case) cannot be discounted. Children and adult descriptions of being taken on-board craft, witnessing a hybridization program, receiving complex information and symbols while interacting with different extraterrestrial species, remembering all kinds of extraterrestrial encounters with and without hypnosis are abundant human facts in the casuistry (for instance in information found in Mary Rodwell and several other hypnotherapist and psychologist’s research). When carefully looked at they cannot simply be discounted as over active imaginations or pathologies. Something real and life-changing seems to be happening to thousands of individuals worldwide.
While each individual type of evidence may not be sufficient, all of the evidence mentioned seems to form an ever-strengthening, Meta evidential, new paradigmatic “edifice” with the otherworldly as a common denominator. This is not a simple return to a magical and/or mythical way of thinking. It is backed by critical thinking, physical evidence and appropriate, emerging theoretical developments like that of “the Quantum Hologram” and what could be termed other “it from bit” approaches to the nature of reality.
Highlighting Three Types of Physical Evidence
MANEUVERING: Natural events usually exhibit position, velocity and acceleration but the complex modification of acceleration is normally (albeit not always) present with intelligence and understood as a cybernetic factor called “control.” Besides “impossible” ‘flight’ characteristics many UFOs (or UAPs) exhibit this factor. Credible witnesses and some verified videos reveal them as stopping, accelerating, going steady and changing direction abruptly. This indicates intelligent guidance.
UNKNOWN MATERIALS such as those obtained by Dr. Roger K. Leir and subsequently analyzed by several respectable laboratories. Even if the small anomalous objects extracted had been of military, industrial complex, “special access,” “unacknowledged,” ultra-compartmentalized “black projects” placed on ordinary citizens not particularly interested in the UFO phenomenon before, how were they created? Why were these found to be advanced nano technological objects, transmitting EM signals and while avoiding rejection from living tissue?
Large solid objects are sometimes seen suddenly and silently ACCELERATING at exceedingly high Mach rates almost impossible to structurally withstand under Newton’s laws of motion. They are also sometimes seen “DEMATERIALIZING” before sane and credible witnesses. Did they “cloak”? Did they shift to another level in the “fractal-holographic” universe? Where would this technology come from even if it was secretly developed by a power on Earth?
RADAR INVISIBILITY and-or visual invisibility during radar on-screen detection of objects sometimes causing alterations of electrical equipment in electronic equipment, automobiles and airplanes.
Conclusion
Even according to an “either-or,” strictly objective scientific standard there is no absolute proof, only sufficiently strong evidence and UFO/UAP research merits scientifically stating as a plausible hypothesis that there’s sufficient evidence that some UFOs/UAPs are extraterrestrial in some non-conventional kind of “otherworldly” fashion.
If all of this evidence is not simply composed of mistakes, hoaxes or figments of pathological imaginations, there remains the fact that all of it points towards the “non-conventional,” “extraterrestrial” “technologically advanced” and “otherworldly.” Is it a simple “coincidence?” Well, when “coincidences” like these unceasingly increase year after year in agreement with a (however eccentric or avant-garde) hypothesis, that’s a good indication that they are simply validating that hypothesis. Thus, it is perfectly rational and scientific to propose the hypothesis that some UFOs/UAPs are technologically advanced, intelligent, extraterrestrial and – above all - otherworldly.
Bibliography
Aharonov, Y. & Bohm, D. (1959). “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory.” Physical review, Second Series, 115 (3).
Bearden. Thomas E. (2002). “Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles.” Santa Barbara: Cheniere Press.
Bell, M., Gottfried, K. & Veltman, M. Eds. (2001). “John S. Bell on The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.” London: World Scientific.
Boi, Luciano (2011). “The Quantum Vacuum.” Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dolan, Richard M. & Zabel, Bryce (2012). “A.D. After Disclosure.” Pompton Plains: New Page Books.
Factor, Donald Ed. (1985). “Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend Dialogue with David Bohm.” Glocestershire: Foundation House Publications.
Coomer, David (1999). “The UFO Investigator’s Guide.” London: Blandford.
Davies, Paul (1990). “Other Worlds: Space, Superspace and the Quantum Universe.” New York: Penguin Books.
Freeman, Jon (2013). “The Science of Possibility: Patterns of Connected Consciousness.” Ferndown: Spiral World.
French Association COMETA (1999). “UFOs and Defense: What Should we Prepare for?” Retrieved from http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm
GEIPAN (2015). “Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux non Identifiés.” Retrieved from http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
Good, Timothy (1998). “Alien Base: The Evidence for Extraterrestrial Colonization of Earth.” New York: Avon Books.
Greenewald, John (2008). “Beyond UFO Secrecy.” Lakeville: Galde Press, Inc.
Harris, Paola (2008). “Connecting the Dots: Making Sense of the UFO Phenomenon.” Bloomington: Author House.
Hynek, Joseph, A. (1972). “The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.” Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale (1999). “UFOs and Defense: What Should we Prepare for?” Retrieved from http://disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/COMETA_part1.pdf
Kean, Leslie (2011). “UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record.” New York: Three Rivers Press.
Kline, Morris (1980). “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laszlo, Ervin & Currivan, Jude (2008). “Cosmos: A Co-creator’s Guide to the Whole-World.” Carlsbad: Hay House, Inc.
Lloyd, Seth (2006). “Programming the Universe: A Quantum computer scientists Takes on the Cosmos.” New York: Vintage Books.
Marcer, P. J. & Schempp, W. (1997). “Model of the Neuron Working by Quantum Holography” Informatica 21:519-534.
Mitchell, Edgar “Nature’s Mind: The Quantum Hologram.” Retrieved from http://edmitchellapollo14.com/dvdandbooks/articles-and-essays/natures-mind/
Paz, Sixto (2011). “Guia Práctica para tener un Contacto.” Barcelona: Editorial Vanir.
Petit, Marco A. (2007). “UFOs: Arquivo Confidencial: Um Mergulho na Ufologia Militar Brasileira.” Campo Grande: CBPDV.
Piacenza, Giorgio. (2014). “A Worthy Attempt to Solve the Enigma of UFO Propulsion.” Retrieved from http://exonews.org/worthy-attempt-solve-enigma-extraterrestrial-ufo-propulsion/
Piacenza, Giorgio. (2014). “Surfing the Cosmos More Lightly: NASA’s Forthcoming ET-Like Technology Research Increases the rational Credibility of ET Visitation.” Retrieved from http://exonews.org/surfing-cosmos-likely-forthcoming-et-like-technology/
Puthoff, H.E. & Little S.R. (2010). “Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum
Radin, Dean (2006). “Entangled Minds: extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality.” New York: Pocket Books.
Rodwell, Mary (2010). “Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact can Transform your Life.” London: New Mind Publishers.
Rothman, Tony & Sudarshan, George (1998). “Doubt and Certainty.” Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Salla, Michael E. (2010). “Exposición de las Políticas del Gobierno USA sobre la Vida Extraterrestre.” Kaelakekua: Exopolitics Institute.
Sarg, Stoyan (2009). “Field propulsion by Control of Gravity: Theory and Experiments.” Lexington.
Sheehan, Daniel (2007) “Exopolitics and ET Disclosure Policy.” UFOTV Studios, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzqUORVLGE
Sturrock, Peter A. (2009). “A Tale of Two Sciences.” Palo Alto: Exo Science.
Swanson, C. (2010). Life Force, the Scientific Basis: Breakthrough Physics of Energy Medicine, Healing, Chi and Quantum Physics. Tucson: Poseidia Press.
Swords, Michael & Powell, Robert, Eds. (2012). “UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry.” San Antonio: Anomalist Books.
The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure (2013). National Press Club. Retrieved from www.citizenhearing.org
Thornton, Stephen (2013) “Karl Popper.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Tiller, W. (1997). Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness. Walnut Creek: Pavior Publishing.
Tiller, W., Dibble, W. & Fandel, G. (2005). Some Science Adventures with Real Magic. Walnut Creek: Pavior Publishing.
Valone, Thomas, Ed. “Electrogravitic Systems.” Washington: Integrity Research Institute.
Vallée, Jacques (2008). “Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact.” San Antonio: Anomalist Books.
Vallée, Jacques & Aubeck, Chris (2010). “Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times.” New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.
Vedral, Vlatko (2010). “Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.